MADRAS HC ‘DISCIPLINARY RULES’ QUASHED BY THE APEX COURT

R. Muthukrishnan, a lawyer, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the vires of amended Rules 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras, 1970. The amendments were introduced by the High Court of Madras under section 34(1) of Advocates Act,1961. The Disciplinary Rules inserted through amendment 2016 were as follows-
Rule 14-A- Empowered the High Court to debar an Advocate from practicing
Rule 14-B- Empowered the Principal District Judge to initiate action against the concerned Advocate and even debar that advocate from appearing before any court within that district.
Rule 14-C- Prescribe the procedure that has to be followed
Rule 14-D- Empowers High Court to pass an interim order prohibiting the concerned Advocate from appearing within the High Court or any other district court.
Decision of the Court
The Apex Court’ Bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran Quashed Rules 14-A to Rule 14-D of the Rules of High Court of Madras,1970. It was stated that the rules were ultra vires to Section 34 of Advocates Act and usurps the power of the Bar Council for Disciplinary Matters. The bench observed that the Advocates Act never intended to confer the disciplinary powers upon the High Court or Supreme Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under Section 38 of the Act.
Reasoning by the Apex Court for Quashing the Rules
The rules had been framed in exercise of power under section 34 of the Advocates Act. But the act has never intended to confer the disciplinary powers upon the High Court or the Supreme Court except to the extent dealing with an appeal under section 38. The amendment made by providing Rule 14(A)(vii) to (xii) is not authorized under the Advocate Act.
Therefore, the Madras High Court had no power to exercise the disciplinary control usurping the power of Bar Council.
The court also observed that the power to debar for contempt of court is different from suspension of enrollment by disciplinary measure.
Explaining the difference, the court said: ” In case of debarment, enrollment continues but a person cannot appear in court once he is guilty of contempt of court until he purges himself as provided in the rule. Debarment due to having been found guilty of contempt of court is not punishment of suspending the license for a specified period or permanently removing him from the roll of Advocates. While guilty of contempt his name still continuous on the roll of concerned Bar Council unless removed or suspended by Bar Council by taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings.”
By-
Tanishka Grover
Student Reporter INBA